What I hypothesize is that a fifty percent slow-motion was used in Apollo 11 to simulate lunar gravity. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736
video (dot) google (dot) es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736

It can also be seen in this video at around the 30 minute 55 second mark.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-7335269088210976286
video (dot) google (dot) es/videoplay?docid=-7335269088210976286

It looks just like movement in earth gravity.

--------------------------------
When the footage from this clip is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
3W's (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look natural. This makes it very clear that they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11 and a faster slow-motion (around 67 percent according to Jarrah White's calculations) combined with wire supports in the later missions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects.

Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
3W's (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
(50 second mark)

It swings back and forth the way it would in gravity.

Look at the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing in this clip.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4
uk (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

This is real zero-gravity and they behave quite differently.

One possible explanation is that they were trying to fake zero-gravity in a diving plane and the plane wasn't diving fast enough at that point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some videos.

This keeps going on and offline so if this link is dead, try googling "Apollo 11 press conference".

Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561
video (dot) google (dot) com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561

Cosmored

12-13-2008, 01:47 PM

One of the reasons they had to fake it might have been space radiation. Here's some stuff I found about space radiation.

http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.

Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

two sets of radiation data
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]

Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thought something smelled bad in here....ok, which one of you left the door open and allowed this Conspiridiocy Theory DUmmy in?

Zathras

12-13-2008, 01:52 PM

I hope you're not going to post all 20.

Of course he will PG. When you have no life, much like our friends at the DUmp, you have time to do worthless stuff like this.

Cosmored

12-13-2008, 01:55 PM

I hope you're not going to post all 20.
No. That won't be necessary.

Thought something smelled bad in here....ok, which one of you left the door open and allowed this Conspiridiocy Theory DUmmy in?
Let's hear some analyses of the evidence instead of rhetoric and invective. If a theory is wrong, it will fall by its own lack of merit. No rhetoric is necessary.

Zathras

12-13-2008, 01:59 PM

Let's hear some analyses of the evidence instead of rhetoric and invective. If a theory is wrong, it will fall by its own lack of merit. No rhetoric is necessary.

Sorry, I have a life..unlike you. Go peddle you load of crap over at the DUmp...they're just the people you want to talk to...ignorant and wanting to dwell on the past.

Moon

12-13-2008, 02:07 PM

If we faked it, why did we do it more than once? Why risk that this massive conspiracy would come unraveled because of an accident?

wilbur

12-13-2008, 02:08 PM

Don't have such an open mind your brain falls out.

A few key points... follow the link to see more.

http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/moonhoax2.html

...

1. CLAIM The moon landing was faked on a movie set. Proof there are clearly two sources of light in the movies and stills taken on the moon. Since there is only one source of light in the sky (the sun) how can we explain the fact that even in shadows there is obvious "fill" light that illuminates various objects that, back lit from the sun, should be in near total darkness. Much of the show was spent on this point as they showed photo after photo, film after film, of "filled in" photos. Fill light is exactly what you would see on a studio set.

ANSWER Even granting that NASA's rocket scientists were too dumb to have thought of this and thus tipped their conspiracy hand to the no-moonies who, apparently, are smarter than rocket scientists, there were actually three sources of light on the moon the sun, the earth that reflects the sun's light, and the moon itself, also reflecting light. The albedo (reflectivity) of the earth is quite high because of the amount of clouds, so the sun acted as the light filler via the earth. And the moon was, to say the least, rather close, and also reflected light.

2. CLAIM The American flag was "waving" in the allegedly airless environment of the moon. How can this be? Proof film footage showing the astronauts planting the flag, with the flag clearly waving.

ANSWER Of course the flag was "waving" while the astronaut was fiddling with it back and forth as he jammed it into the hole. But the moment he let go of the flag, it mysteriously stopped waving. Umm, coincidence? I don't think so.

...

11. The Van Allen radiation belts surrounding the Earth would have fried the astronauts with a lethal dose of radiation.

ANSWER Wrong. If you blast right through the Van Allen belts it is no problem, which is what the Apollo astronauts did. X-rays would be lethal too, if you sat there soaking in them long enough. A very real problem, however, are cosmic rays. They are not a problem on a short flight like to the moon, but in long flights that might last years, like to Mars, they could be a serious problem.

...

Zathras

12-13-2008, 02:10 PM

If we faked it, why did we do it more than once? Why risk that this massive conspiracy would come unraveled because of an accident?

And after all of these years, much like the supposed JFK assassination conspiracy, how come nobody has come forward and talked?

Moon

12-13-2008, 02:13 PM

And after all of these years, much like the supposed JFK assassination conspiracy, how come nobody has come forward and talked?

Simply amazing, isn't it?

BadCat

12-13-2008, 02:15 PM

And after all of these years, much like the supposed JFK assassination conspiracy, how come nobody has come forward and talked?

Because a quarter of million people who worked on the Apollo program can all keep their mouths shut?

Zathras

12-13-2008, 02:20 PM

Because a quarter of million people who worked on the Apollo program can all keep their mouths shut?

Must be the same people that wired the WTC with explosives and flew the remote control airliners into the WTC on 09/11/01.

Cosmored

12-13-2008, 03:12 PM

ANSWER Even granting that NASA's rocket scientists were too dumb to have thought of this and thus tipped their conspiracy hand to the no-moonies who, apparently, are smarter than rocket scientists, there were actually three sources of light on the moon the sun, the earth that reflects the sun's light, and the moon itself, also reflecting light. The albedo (reflectivity) of the earth is quite high because of the amount of clouds, so the sun acted as the light filler via the earth. And the moon was, to say the least, rather close, and also reflected light.
There are some mistakes made by hoax-believers. Some of the light anomalies are explainable and some aren't. There is enough other evidence of a hoax though such as the first four anomalies mentioned in post #1.

2. CLAIM The American flag was "waving" in the allegedly airless environment of the moon. How can this be? Proof film footage showing the astronauts planting the flag, with the flag clearly waving.

ANSWER Of course the flag was "waving" while the astronaut was fiddling with it back and forth as he jammed it into the hole. But the moment he let go of the flag, it mysteriously stopped waving. Umm, coincidence? I don't think so.

There is some footage of the flag waving when nobody is touching it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4
3W's (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs
3W's (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs

Here is another three-part series that analyses the flag movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ
3W's (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ

The Van Allen radiation belts surrounding the Earth would have fried the astronauts with a lethal dose of radiation.

ANSWER Wrong. If you blast right through the Van Allen belts it is no problem, which is what the Apollo astronauts did. X-rays would be lethal too, if you sat there soaking in them long enough. A very real problem, however, are cosmic rays. They are not a problem on a short flight like to the moon, but in long flights that might last years, like to Mars, they could be a serious problem.

This is just the official version of the space radiation issue. The only people who know the real nature of space radiation are people with high security clearances in countries which have sent probes into space. All the rest of us can do is read what's available and try to make sense of it all. The video anomalies are proof that they faked it; radiation is probably the main reason they had to fake it but nobody who hasn't seen the actual data the government can speak authoritatively on space radiation.

Because a quarter of million people who worked on the Apollo program can all keep their mouths shut?
Most of the people who worked on the program only knew about what was happening in their own compartments; they probably weren't in a position to know if the whole thing would work so most of them were probably fooled too. The press would never report anything a whistle-blower had to say anyway. The press is controlled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0
3W's (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0

Also, it would be downright dangerous for a whistle-blower to start giving lectures on the Apollo hoax. Look what happened to Thomas Baron.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
es (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE

Must be the same people that wired the WTC with explosives and flew the remote control airliners into the WTC on 09/11/01.
Yes, I think that 9/11 was an inside job. In the fist link below there are some good documentaries on the subject. Be sure to watch "Loose Change", "9/11 Mysteries", and "Painful Deceptions".

Yes, I think that 9/11 was an inside job. In the fist link below there are some good documentaries on the subject. Be sure to watch "Loose Change", "9/11 Mysteries", and "Painful Deceptions".

On that note, we're moving this to Stupid Liberal Tricks.

nacho

12-13-2008, 04:01 PM

Yes, I think that 9/11 was an inside job. In the fist link below there are some good documentaries on the subject. Be sure to watch "Loose Change", "9/11 Mysteries", and "Painful Deceptions".

The bigger surprise would have been if you DIDN'T buy that bullcrap.

Zathras

12-13-2008, 04:55 PM

Must be the same people that wired the WTC with explosives and flew the remote control airliners into the WTC on 09/11/01.

Wow, I was just joking when I posted this but this DUmbass believes it. Well, I guess Alan Jones's fans have to do something when he's not on the air.

Goldwater

12-13-2008, 04:59 PM

My rationale for 9/11:

Bill Clinton couldn't keep a blowjob a secret, yet George Bush can blow up two sky scrapers and keep it hush hush with no stains?

expat-pattaya

12-13-2008, 05:26 PM

Isn't there a tinfoil hat making festival you can attend this weekend :rolleyes:

Cosmored

12-13-2008, 06:11 PM

My rationale for 9/11:

Bill Clinton couldn't keep a blowjob a secret, yet George Bush can blow up two sky scrapers and keep it hush hush with no stains?

My theory on Bill Clinton's problem is that he was making the medical insurance companies angry because he wanted to make free health care available to all Americans. That would have taken away a big part of the health insurance market. Check out this stuff on the shadow government.

If a president goes against the people who are really in power, they seem to have ways of getting him back under control, or ruining him if necessary. I think Monica Lewinski might have been working for the medical insurance companies. No woman would keep a semen-stained dress in her closet for a year without washing it.
This is only a theory but it does fit the picture.

In post #6 I posted some stuff about the American press. Here's some more stuff.

The press seems to be controlled by the people who have the money and if the president disobeys them, they use the press against him. The people with money seem to have planned 9/11 because they want to get control of the oil in Iraq, Iran, and build oil pipelines in Afganistan.

That would explain why the press spilled the beans on Clinton but not 9/11. It's only a theory, but it's plausible.

Reporters can't just print anything they want. Everything has to be approved by the editor and the editor answers to the owner of the newspaper.

newshutr

12-13-2008, 06:53 PM

Where is SR?

ralph wiggum

12-13-2008, 07:00 PM

Where is SR?

We need a new chew toy. This one is mostly harmless so far.

Sonnabend

12-13-2008, 07:11 PM

The landing vehicles left on the Moon can be seen with a telescope.

Case closed.

You, sir, are a loon, and I recommend hot packs, sedation and intensive psychotherapy combined with a weekly high colonic enema and shock treatments, followed by a fifteen mile hike with full pack.

Dismissed.

EricMartin

12-13-2008, 10:36 PM

Here's an episode of "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" where they debunk conspiracy theories (in particular the ones about the moon landing, the murder of J.F.K. and 9/11) and ridicule the people who believe in them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAXN0YKBMMQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-s5GHz_UOo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H-R-yVhXN4

SarasotaRepub

12-13-2008, 11:33 PM

Pelican...is that you??? :p:D

asdf2231

12-14-2008, 01:43 AM

Pelican...is that you??? :p:D

It's gotta be because there cannot, CANNOT be two people out there this retarded. :p

wiegenlied

12-14-2008, 05:19 AM

:confused: Saying that we never went to the moon is very ludicrous. A Lunar Module camera provided live television coverage of Armstrong setting foot on the lunar surface at 10:56 p.m July 20, 1969. Buzz Aldrin (http://www.buzzaldrin.com/space/bibliography/index.html) wrote so many articles about that as well and, how about watching Apollo 11: Men on the Moon (http://www.amazon.com/Apollo-ArmstrongBuzz-AldrinMichael-CollinsThousands-others/dp/B000HOJ3IE/ref=tag_dpp_lp_edpp_ttl_in)?

Cosmored

12-14-2008, 07:04 AM

The landing vehicles left on the Moon can be seen with a telescope.
Please provide a link to the picture. Pictures can be faked too so pictures aren't conclusive proof.

Saying that we never went to the moon is very ludicrous. A Lunar Module camera provided live television coverage of Armstrong setting foot on the lunar surface at 10:56 p.m July 20, 1969. Buzz Aldrin wrote so many articles about that as well and, how about watching Apollo 11: Men on the Moon?
Those pictures were taken in a studio and Aldrin is lying.

You people are ignoring the evidence that's in post #1 of this thread.

wiegenlied

12-14-2008, 07:22 AM

Those pictures were taken in a studio and Aldrin is lying. You people are ignoring the evidence that's in post #1 of this thread.

So why is it that I should believe you and you-tube over Aldrin and NASA?

Btw, another great video In the Shadow of the Moon (2007) (http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Moon-Harrison-Schmitt/dp/B000XJ5TPE/ref=pd_ts_d_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd) is great!

Cosmored

12-14-2008, 07:48 AM

So why is it that I should believe you and you-tube over Aldrin and NASA?

Judging from your replies nobody has examined the evidence I posted in post #1. The evidence shows the moon missions were faked. If you think it doesn't, say why.

Hoax-believers have made a few mistakes. A lot of them are well-known and some of them are in those videos I posted. When those mistakes are corrected, they don't prove the missions were real.

Mythbusters is correct. This was a mistake made by hoax-believers. However, when this mistake is corrected, there's still the issue of whether this was taken in a studio or not. It doesn't disprove the hoax theory. There is other irrefutable evidence of a hoax.

This is from post #1.

Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
3W's (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
(50 second mark)

It swings back and forth the way it would in gravity.

Look at the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing in this clip.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4
uk (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

This is real zero-gravity and they behave quite differently.

One possible explanation is that they were trying to fake zero-gravity in a diving plane and the plane wasn't diving fast enough at that point.

At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

Sonnabend

12-14-2008, 08:26 AM

The landing vehicles left on the Moon can be seen with a telescope.

Case closed.

Those pictures were taken in a studio and Aldrin is lying.

You're batshit insane.

Cosmored

12-14-2008, 08:35 AM

The landing vehicles left on the Moon can be seen with a telescope.

Case closed.

Quote:
Those pictures were taken in a studio and Aldrin is lying.

You're batshit insane.
I've never seen a picture. Please post one. As I said before--pictures can be faked so they are not proof of anything.

You're ignoring the hoax evidence I posted. You people seem to be in denial.

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".

Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:

if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
and—counter-intuitively, perhaps—if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

linda22003

12-14-2008, 08:37 AM

I think Monica Lewinski might have been working for the medical insurance companies. No woman would keep a semen-stained dress in her closet for a year without washing it.

And no competent woman would have spilled any on the dress to begin with.

Sonnabend

12-14-2008, 09:02 AM

I've never seen a picture. Please post one. As I said before--pictures can be faked so they are not proof of anything.I said they can be seen from a telescope. Go to an observatory and ask to see it. The vehicles are visible..so that, as they say, is that.

You're ignoring the hoax evidence I posted. You people seem to be in denial.There is no "evidence", and there have been multiple missions to the Moon. Were they faked too?

Umm, why don't you go and look through a telescope and see for yourself, retard?

Awesome!

Moon

12-14-2008, 10:00 AM

Please provide a link to the picture. Pictures can be faked too so pictures aren't conclusive proof.

Wait for it...

Those pictures were taken in a studio and Aldrin is lying.

You people are ignoring the evidence that's in post #1 of this thread.

You discount the use of pictures that will prove you are wrong, and yet you cling to pictures and video to make your case. How do you know the pictures you're relying on haven't been faked?

You also didn't answer my question from upthread; if the moon landings were a fake, why do it more than once? One time would have satisfied our goals and the promise JFK made to the country, so why risk exposure by going through the same fakery 9 times?

Sonnabend

12-14-2008, 10:07 AM

And no competent woman would have spilled any on the dress to begin with.

Uh...Linda....TMI, m,'lady.

WAY TMI

(P.s Merry Christmas :))

Sonnabend

12-14-2008, 10:35 AM

For the sane amongst us, a memory of one of Man's greatest moments

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2004/07.20.04.apollo.11.lg.jpg

biccat

12-14-2008, 10:42 AM

This thread is excellent. I love conspiracy theories.

This (http://www.rense.com/health/rife.htm) is my new obsession. What drives people to this degree of obsession over an unproven hypothesis is amazing.

SarasotaRepub

12-14-2008, 10:53 AM

Judging from your replies nobody has examined the evidence I posted in post #1. The evidence shows the moon missions were faked. If you think it doesn't, say why.

Cosmored...we've had people like you here before. NO ONE is going to waste their time picking apart your posts. Please engage on some other topics. :)

Sonnabend

12-14-2008, 11:09 AM

We went to the Moon, and we are going to Mars. And then beyond.

expat-pattaya

12-14-2008, 12:56 PM

Great stuff. The troll is actually getting some responses though.

What, DU too dull? Well of course with the total ban on free expression it would be.

http://www.io.com/%7Eo_m/omworld/images/blog/04-07/tinfoil_hat.jpg

Moon

12-14-2008, 12:59 PM

Great stuff. The troll is actually getting some responses though.

What, DU too dull? Well of course with the total ban on free expression it would be.

Seems to be the goal some have for Cosmored here as well.

newshutr

12-14-2008, 01:01 PM

How many men landed on Moon....?

Oh that's right, Moon's a guy...

:D

Moon

12-14-2008, 01:33 PM

How many men landed on Moon....?

Oh that's right, Moon's a guy...

:D

:eek:

:D

M21

12-14-2008, 01:37 PM

How many men landed on Moon....?

Oh that's right, Moon's a guy...

:D
Does that mean they landed on the backside of the moon. "Boldly going where no man has gone before" :p

wiegenlied

12-14-2008, 01:38 PM

Those pictures were taken in a studio.
From which studio were the moon’s pictures taken other than from Apollo 11 and NASA?

and Aldrin is lying.
He can tell us exactly how moon looks like.

Judging from your replies nobody has examined the evidence I posted in post #1. The evidence shows the moon missions were faked. If you think it doesn't, say why

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/144832main_aldrin_bootprint.jpg
One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.

I think a proper respect must be given to all astronauts who have risked their life to make our space-dream into reality, and to all NASA scientists who have worked hard days and nights. They have reached what’s beyond imagination and have opened the endless possibility of space exploration. It is something to be proud of, not something to be made fun of.

newshutr

12-14-2008, 02:17 PM

:eek:

:D

Sorry...I couldn't resist!!!

Zathras

12-14-2008, 02:30 PM

hey DUmbass, here's your pictures...now shut the fuck up and go away.

http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html#apollo

Troll

12-14-2008, 03:42 PM

Cosmored, let me take you down a hypothetical path, as one (semi) conspiracy believer to another:

Let's assume that the Moon landing(s) were faked, and that the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 were both 'inside jobs'. Doesn't the first kind of pale in comparison to the other two? I mean - if the Moon landing was a hoax, so what? Nobody died, and we didn't use it as an excuse to extend government powers or over-commit our military or kill a bunch of innocent people. Plus, we've been back since, so I'm not sure how this conspiracy falls into the ballpark of 9/11 or JFK. It would really just be one more lie a government has told its citizenry.

And no competent woman would have spilled any on the dress to begin with.

Linda I,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,,,,,,,I,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Nevermind, I'm married.:o:D

Sonnabend

12-15-2008, 07:03 AM

Ree, could you do me a small favour and go back and take out all the quoted videos in your post above?

That's one HUGE post at the start, can we :snip: for brevity?

*bats eyelashes*

Pretty please? :)

wiegenlied

12-15-2008, 07:18 AM

cosmored has been unarmored

Ree

12-15-2008, 01:16 PM

Ree, could you do me a small favour and go back and take out all the quoted videos in your post above?

That's one HUGE post at the start, can we :snip: for brevity?

*bats eyelashes*

Pretty please? :)
No worries mate....;)

If I ever get to Oz..ya owe me a cold one...:)

Rebel Yell

12-15-2008, 01:27 PM

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee51/ShadowMark-182/Mooninites.jpg

PoliCon

12-15-2008, 03:30 PM

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee51/ShadowMark-182/Mooninites.jpg
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Rebel Yell again.:cool::D

Mythic

12-15-2008, 04:46 PM

The landing vehicles left on the Moon can be seen with a telescope.

Case closed.
I think that sums it up enough. But incase you still want to be ignorant, here are counter arguments to every conspiracy theory about the moon landings.

Here are quotes from another site.

"If in fact we did go to the Moon, as NASA contends, then the evidence that we did go to the Moon should stand up to scrutiny. That evidence has been in the public domain for 30 years now in the form of photographs, images of spacecraft taken by astronauts in other spacecraft as well as images of the spacecraft heading towards the moon by telescope from the Earth, video records broadcast in real-time and seen in real-time, scientific experiments placed on the moon (whose placement was clearly documented by the lunar photography including still photography by the astronauts and video images transmitted in real-time), moonrocks and samples returned from the surface of the moon which support the supposition that they resided on the Moon (by examining the chemical makeup of the rocks, isotopic abundances, cosmic ray exposure ages, radioactive dating techniques, etc.), and by the astronauts themselves both in situ on the lunar surface and after their return to Earth.

The TMLWF crowd usually falls back on the typical large and complex, self sustaining conspiracy theory arguments, including the grand notion that they were faked by elaborate Hollywood style film fakery on some secret sound stage. Lets stop to ponder this for a moment. Think of the best special effects movies that you have ever seen. Now think of the inconsistencies and visual errors that even the casual and uninformed audience can see in these films. Now think back to 1969 and the movies that were made then. Could we have produced such fakery that it would not only stand up to the scrutiny of a 1969 audience, but also a whole generation of scientists familiar with the geologic study of celestial bodies? In fact, the only ones to find fault in this record is a small "cottage industry" group of TMLWFers."

This page disproves everything.
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/
Have a field day!

Zathras

12-15-2008, 05:23 PM

And like a cockroach does when you shine the light on them, Cosmored has run for cover, refusing to face the light of truth.

Sonnabend

12-15-2008, 05:41 PM

*blush*

Sure :D

YupItsMe

12-15-2008, 08:58 PM

For the sane amongst us, a memory of one of Man's greatest moments

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2004/07.20.04.apollo.11.lg.jpg

If you hold a mirror up to that picture and pop a hit of the brown acid you can clearly see the intials "MGM" just above the astronauts head. Case closed ;)

The landing vehicles left on the Moon can be seen with a telescope.Uh, that proves nothing. Don't you understand that the government has controlled the production of optics for all telescopes produced worldwide? Every telescope that is aimed at the moon will produce an optical illusion that can fool even seasoned astronomers. In fact, Bush even commissioned Galileo and Copernicus to incorporate the optical aberrations into their lenses. Now, please click on all my linkys again until you believe like I do. You won't be enlightened like me until you do that![/cosmored mode]

Mythic

12-16-2008, 05:14 PM

TIME FOR MY OWN CONSPIRACY THEORY!!
Cosmored is really jeskibuff!
Why? Cosmored joined on Dec. 12. He posted two topics, American Imperialism and this on on Dec. 13. He has not been active since Dec. 14. Now, all of a sudden jeskibuff is telling me to look at all of his links. He never posted on this topic before! ZOMG!

Now, please click on all my linkys again until you believe like I do. You won't be enlightened like me until you do that![/cosmored mode]

Do you see this! Also, why did he put cosmored mode? Did he forget who he was? The only way this can be false is if you can give me pictures proving that I am wrong. But pictures can be changed and altered so they are not reliable.

This picture proves my point. Nothing else is necessary. I will not tell you why this proves that jeskibuff is Cosmored, only that it is proof.
http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/Hillary%20Clinton%20from%20all4humor.jpg

jeskibuff

12-16-2008, 10:12 PM

TIME FOR MY OWN CONSPIRACY THEORY!!
Cosmored is really jeskibuff!
Why? Cosmored joined on Dec. 12. He posted two topics, American Imperialism and this on on Dec. 13. He has not been active since Dec. 14. Now, all of a sudden jeskibuff is telling me to look at all of his links. He never posted on this topic before! ZOMG!

Do you see this! Also, why did he put cosmored mode? Did he forget who he was? The only way this can be false is if you can give me pictures proving that I am wrong. But pictures can be changed and altered so they are not reliable.

This picture proves my point. Nothing else is necessary. I will not tell you why this proves that jeskibuff is Cosmored, only that it is proof.
http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/Hillary%20Clinton%20from%20all4humor.jpg
Drat!

My cover is blown!

As an aside, here's a little Christmas tune to go along with that Hillary picture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0yyITRyvM4

AmPat

12-17-2008, 04:41 AM

That is the NEW FACE of the Untited States that all foreign heads of State will see. Frightening huh? Maybe they will regret being so enamored of The One.

Cosmored

12-17-2008, 07:57 AM

hey DUmbass, here's your pictures...now shut the fuck up and go away.

http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html#apollo

This picture doesn't prove anything. Pictures can be faked.

The footage released by the government is full of anomalies. Nobody has addressed any of them yet. You all have patronizing attitudes but nobody has said anything with any real substance yet.

I'm a little busy right now so I can't address all of the responses yet. I'll do some catching up later.

SarasotaRepub

12-17-2008, 08:33 AM

Oh golly gee...we can't wait!!!:rolleyes::D

Sonnabend

12-17-2008, 08:45 AM

Tass.

Right.

Thats what I call credible...:rolleyes:

Rebel Yell

12-17-2008, 10:07 AM

http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html#apollo

This picture doesn't prove anything. Pictures can be faked.

The footage released by the government is full of anomalies. Nobody has addressed any of them yet. You all have patronizing attitudes but nobody has said anything with any real substance yet.

I'm a little busy right now so I can't address all of the responses yet. I'll do some catching up later.

The world is also flat, right? Have you ever seen both sides at the same time? Plus, if the Earth was round all the water would run off.

enslaved1

12-17-2008, 12:14 PM

Hey this is better than the same old trolls coming back with new names. Too bad this one isn't at least more original.

PoliCon

12-17-2008, 12:21 PM

Hey this is better than the same old trolls coming back with new names. Too bad this one isn't at least more original.
We do have a few members who stink of old socks . . . .

Zathras

12-17-2008, 01:09 PM

http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html#apollo

This picture doesn't prove anything. Pictures can be faked.

Says the person using photos to prove his whacked out beliefs.

The footage released by the government is full of anomalies. Nobody has addressed any of them yet. You all have patronizing attitudes but nobody has said anything with any real substance yet.

Well, when the person who started this thread, you, hasn't said anything of substance, or of intelligence for that matter, the best you're going to get is ridicule and derision

I'm a little busy right now so I can't address all of the responses yet. I'll do some catching up later.

What's the matter, other websites you're posting on laughing at you too or are you having trouble keeping the tin foil wallpaper staying on walls of your basement?

Cosmored

12-17-2008, 01:19 PM

OK. I'll ask a direct question about one of the anomalies I posted.

Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
3W's (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
(50 second mark)

It swings back and forth the way it would in gravity.

Look at the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing in this clip.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4
uk (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

This is real zero-gravity and they behave quite differently.

One possible explanation is that they were trying to fake zero-gravity in a diving plane and the plane wasn't diving fast enough at that point.
The corner of Collins' jacket is swinging back and forth the way it would in gravity. The dogtags around his neck are also bouncing up and down the way they would in gravity. According to the video they are supposed to be halfway to the moon. If they were halfway to the moon, how do you explain the movement of Collins' jacket corner?

Zathras

12-17-2008, 01:30 PM

OK. I'll ask a direct question about one of the anomalies I posted.

The corner of Collins' jacket is swinging back and forth the way it would in gravity. The dogtags around his neck are also bouncing up and down the way they would in gravity. According to the video they are supposed to be halfway to the moon. If they were halfway to the moon, how do you explain the movement of Collins' jacket corner?

Easy...Collins is bouncing up and down, jacket is loose so it's going to move like that. Plus those jackets have quite a bit of weight to them. Weight means mass and mass does not go away in a zero-g enviroment.

PoliCon

12-17-2008, 01:33 PM

Easy...Collins is bouncing up and down, jacket is loose so it's going to move like that.
I never figured you for the type to pick on the mentally challenged. :(

Zathras

12-17-2008, 01:40 PM

I never figured you for the type to pick on the mentally challenged. :(

Hey, I picked on Blinky, didn't I? There's mentally challenged, then there's idiotic moron. Moronred falls in the latter category.Blinky was a jackass. This guy is obviously short on braincells.

Zathras

12-17-2008, 01:43 PM

Blinky was a jackass. This guy is obviously short on braincells.

Hey, we have to do with what is provided. Cosmoron will have to do till the next Blinky comes along.

Cosmored

12-17-2008, 01:47 PM

Easy...Collins is bouncing up and down, jacket is loose so it's going to move like that. Plus those jackets have quite a bit of weight to them. Weight means mass and mass does not go away in a zero-g enviroment.

The corner of Collins' jacket goes up, stops, and goes back down. There is no identifiable force making it go back down except gravity. If you think I'm wrong, please identify the force that makes the corner of his jacket go back down.

Zathras

12-17-2008, 03:23 PM

The corner of Collins' jacket goes up, stops, and goes back down. There is no identifiable force making it go back down except gravity. If you think I'm wrong, please identify the force that makes the corner of his jacket go back down.

Collin's last motion is down. The mass of jacket is reacting to the downward motion of Collin's last motion...it's called inertia.

Cosmored

12-17-2008, 03:26 PM

Collin's last motion is down. The mass of jacket is reacting to the downward motion of Collin's last motion...it's called inertia.
The fabric of the jacket is not stiff enough to push the corner back down. It would at least fold. It goes back down exactly the way it would in gravity.

Zathras

12-17-2008, 03:41 PM

The fabric of the jacket is not stiff enough to push the corner back down. It would at least fold. It goes back down exactly the way it would in gravity.

How do you know that the fabric is not stiff enough...have you seen, in person, the jackets that were worn on the Apollo missions? I doubt it. You're just another idiot who has nothing to do and fills his time with worthless crap. And with that I'm done with you. Go bother other people who are just as ignorant as you. Oh, and by the way, don't bother replying to this posting. You see, we have a wonderful function here called ignore. I will be putting you on it as soon as I'm done here. This way I wont have my IQ lowered by your stupidity.

PoliCon

12-17-2008, 03:44 PM

The fabric of the jacket is not stiff enough to push the corner back down. It would at least fold. It goes back down exactly the way it would in gravity.Repeat after me:

I R AN RETARD.

Say it loud and proud! Put on your tinfoil hat and shout it from the rooftops!

I R AN RETARD!!

Zathras

12-17-2008, 03:46 PM

Repeat after me:

I R AN RETARD.

Say it loud and proud! Put on your tinfoil hat and shout it from the rooftops!

I R AN RETARD!!

I have a better idea, just came up with it. Whenever Comoron posts we should hijack the thread. I'll start.

Who likes pie? What kind?

biccat

12-17-2008, 03:46 PM

Repeat after me:

I R AN RETARD.

I think you mean:

"I am we todd did"

PoliCon

12-17-2008, 03:48 PM

I think you mean:

"I am we todd did"that works to :p

Cosmored

12-17-2008, 04:02 PM

How do you know that the fabric is not stiff enough...have you seen, in person, the jackets that were worn on the Apollo missions?
It's obvious that it's not stuff enough just by looking at the way it folds when Collins runs in place. Go to post #1 and compare it with the way the corners of the space station astronaut's jacket behave.

Zathras

12-17-2008, 04:15 PM

Please look at the idiotic crap I've posted

Naw, let's watch something entertaining and much more intelligent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go

expat-pattaya

12-17-2008, 04:41 PM

This is getting silly. No evidence of success is legitimate but all evidence of fraud is gospel.

Molon Labe

12-17-2008, 05:29 PM

Ok....I try to be as objective as I can...but if it looks like a duck...sounds like a duck....:rolleyes:

biccat

12-17-2008, 06:58 PM

Ok....I try to be as objective as I can...but if it looks like a duck...sounds like a duck....:rolleyes:
It's obviously a goose dressed up like a duck and surgically modified to sound like a duck in order to perpetuate the myth of American hegemony in duck-related matters and discourage foreign involvement to protect the BFEE from being outed as the criminals they are for investing in the fraudulent MIHOP anti-goose incitement which resulted from 9/11, which, incidentally, was caused by explosives manufactured from Saudi Arabian oil and millions of pounds of goose poop. Conveniently enough, while the towers burned, the BFEE dined on goose liver pate. Actually it should have a ' over the e, but I don't know how to do the ' over the e, which is even more proof that the BFEE has control over keyboard manufacturers in order to prevent the masses from learning the truth of, what is now known in educated circles, as not 9/11, but the night of Grey Goose pate. Also Russians. And vodka.

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!

Mythic

12-17-2008, 08:44 PM

It's obvious that it's not stuff enough just by looking at the way it folds when Collins runs in place. Go to post #1 and compare it with the way the corners of the space station astronaut's jacket behave.......... I lol'd.

Ree

12-17-2008, 11:04 PM

I have a better idea, just came up with it. Whenever Comoron posts we should hijack the thread. I'll start.

It's obvious that it's not stuff enough just by looking at the way it folds when Collins runs in place. Go to post #1 and compare it with the way the corners of the space station astronaut's jacket behave.

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd51/sherare82/clock.jpg

RobJohnson

12-19-2008, 08:48 AM

Everyone knows there is no such thing as the moon.

This is old news. :rolleyes:

jeskibuff

12-19-2008, 09:23 AM

Everyone knows there is no such thing as the moon.

This is old news. :rolleyes:NOT TRUE!

I met her...uh, I mean him at the CU meetup in Atlanta over a year ago!

Doc Savage

12-19-2008, 09:55 AM

Is Vader really Lukes father?

Doc Savage

12-20-2008, 09:16 AM

So in a quick synopsis of a moon mission.
Rocket launched at Kennedy, (hard to fake, millions of spectators)
Capsule lands at some non disclosed location
Speilberg or some other director films a moon landing
Capsule re-launced
Capsule re-enters atmosphere, recovered by the Navy, and to top it all off, only visitors to the cookoo nest know about the charade. And NO ONE SPILLS THE BEANS FROM NASA, ROCKWELL, GRUMMEN, BOEING, the NAVY, the Press, Can you explain Apollo 13?

Sonnabend

12-20-2008, 09:42 AM

Doc...ssshh...don't use facts, you'll just confuse him.

SarasotaRepub

12-20-2008, 04:02 PM

Is Vader really Lukes father?

LOL!!!!!!! :D;)

Moon

12-20-2008, 11:13 PM

Everyone knows there is no such thing as the moon.

This is old news. :rolleyes:

This news depresses me.

RobJohnson

12-21-2008, 03:44 PM

This news depresses me.

Sorry.

:D

Spâtha

12-23-2008, 01:49 AM

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f372/highdesert/Honesty.jpg

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f372/highdesert/tin_foil_hat.gif

Cosmored

12-24-2008, 01:22 PM

Rocket launched at Kennedy, (hard to fake, millions of spectators)
The launches were real. The rockets just never took people to the moon.

Capsule lands at some non disclosed location
There are several plausible theories for what happened after the launch but the evidence shows that the footage we were shown was not taken on the moon but in a studio.

And NO ONE SPILLS THE BEANS FROM NASA, ROCKWELL, GRUMMEN, BOEING, the NAVY, the Press,
Most of the people working on the program were probably fooled too. The whole program was compartmentalized. Most people probably weren't in a position to know if the whole thing would work. Anyone who tried to spill the beans would be risking his or her own life and the lives of his or her whole family. Don't forget what happened to Thomas Baron.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
es (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE

The press would never report what a whistle-blower had to say anyway. The American press is too controlled.

The launches were real. The rockets just never took people to the moon.

There are several plausible theories for what happened after the launch but the evidence shows that the footage we were shown was not taken on the moon but in a studio.

Most of the people working on the program were probably fooled too. The whole program was compartmentalized.

Exactly. This in itself needs to be explored. The individual Compartments were given a task. They had to meet the specific criteria that would enable successful launch, space walk, moon landing and return. There were thousands of people involved. NONE of them think it was faked.

Incidentally, why didn't our arch enemy, the USSR, who we were in a race to the moon with us, spill the beans on this alleged hoax? The answer is obvious, they couldn't disprove the mission. They would have LOVED to expose the USA as a fake with a huge hoax like this.

You're embarrassing yourself.:cool:

Cosmored

12-26-2008, 10:51 AM

Exactly. This in itself needs to be explored. The individual Compartments were given a task. They had to meet the specific criteria that would enable successful launch, space walk, moon landing and return. There were thousands of people involved. NONE of them think it was faked.

It isn't necessarily true that none of them think it was faked. If a whistle-blower came forward, the press would ignore him (see my last post). He would also be putting his career and his life at risk. Look what happened to the whistle-blower Thomas Baron.

Incidentally, why didn't our arch enemy, the USSR, who we were in a race to the moon with us, spill the beans on this alleged hoax? The answer is obvious, they couldn't disprove the mission. They would have LOVED to expose the USA as a fake with a huge hoax like this.
You're just assuming that what we were reading back in those days reflected reality. Who knows what was really going on behind the scenes.

http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also recommend that you read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war. It's in his book "Deterring Democracy"
http://www.amazon.com/Deterring-Democracy-Noam-Chomsky/dp/0374523495/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230302916&sr=1-1

Doc Savage

12-26-2008, 10:59 AM

The launches were real. The rockets just never took people to the moon.

There are several plausible theories for what happened after the launch but the evidence shows that the footage we were shown was not taken on the moon but in a studio.

Most of the people working on the program were probably fooled too. The whole program was compartmentalized. Most people probably weren't in a position to know if the whole thing would work. Anyone who tried to spill the beans would be risking his or her own life and the lives of his or her whole family. Don't forget what happened to Thomas Baron.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE

The press would never report what a whistle-blower had to say anyway. The American press is too controlled.

Explain the astronauts eating floating M&M's and bigs globs of juice on TV. Apollo 13? And where did the "moon rocks" come from? Geologists examined them, pretty smart guys too and knew that there were no rocks like that on this rock.

Cosmored

12-26-2008, 11:19 AM

Explain the astronauts eating floating M&M's and bigs globs of juice on TV.
This doesn't prove anything. That could have been filmed in low earth orbit or in a plane that was diving to simulate zero-gravity.

Apollo 13?
That was fakable. Watch the documentary "Was it Only a Paper Moon?".
http://www.thule.org/brains/moon.rm

And where did the "moon rocks" come from? Geologists examined them, pretty smart guys too and knew that there were no rocks like that on this rock.
That's what we read but is it true? If a geologist were to say they weren't real, the American press would never report it. Some rocks may have actually been collected by unmanned craft on the moon. Some of them might be meteorites. There are too many plausible scenarios that would explain the rocks. The video footage shows that the missions were faked so the rocks are a moot point.

Read the comment section of this YouTube video. There's a good discussion about the rocks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCN7qWrLHVw
3W's (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=VCN7qWrLHVw

(Do a YouTube search on "WE LANDED ON THE MOON #1 Moonrocks" to see the comment section)

I think there's something about the rocks here.
http://www.erichufschmid.net/ApolloMoonHoax.pdf

how do we bounce lasers off the moon from the mirrors left by the astronauts? Explain how moon rocks retrieved by the soviets (unmanned lunar lander) match the moon rocks brought back by NASA. Explain independent radar tracking of lunar missions. i.e. Soviets (they would have liked nothing better to do than prove the US is a fake). I guess you are able to do what the entire communist block was unable to do. BRAVO!!!!!

Zathras

12-26-2008, 02:00 PM

how do we bounce lasers off the moon from the mirrors left by the astronauts? Explain how moon rocks retrieved by the soviets (unmanned lunar lander) match the moon rocks brought back by NASA. Explain independent radar tracking of lunar missions. i.e. Soviets (they would have liked nothing better to do than prove the US is a fake). I guess you are able to do what the entire communist block was unable to do. BRAVO!!!!!

Don't you know? The whole cold war thing was a fake too, made up by the US Government. [/sarcasm]

Facts...ain't they a bitch. Maybe you should get some Cosmoron. Oh, and while you're at it, get yourself a life while you're at it. Judging by your moronic postings, you seem to be out of one and have been for quite some time.

Cosmored

12-26-2008, 02:06 PM

how do we bounce lasers off the moon from the mirrors left by the astronauts?
Unmanned craft can have remote-controlled adjustable mirrors attached to their sides. Mirrors on the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon.

Explain how moon rocks retrieved by the soviets (unmanned lunar lander) match the moon rocks brought back by NASA.
Again you're just assuming that what we are told reflects reality. There are several plausible scenarios that would explain this.

They don't really match and we are told that they do.
Some of the American moon rocks may have been collected by unmanned craft.
The Soviets might have faked their unmanned mission.

The video footage shows that the Apollo moon missions were faked so that trumps any evidence that has lots of plausible explanations such as moon rocks.

Explain independent radar tracking of lunar missions. i.e. Soviets (they would have liked nothing better to do than prove the US is a fake).
Again you're just assuming we're being told the truth. Look at all the plausible scenarios here.

The Soviets could have been colaborating with NASA.
Maybe nobody else had the capability to track the missions and we're told that they did.
Unmanned craft might have actually gone to the moon and orbited it for the length of the supposed Apollo missions and then returned.

I guess you are able to do what the entire communist block was unable to do. BRAVO!!!!!
Please watch the videos I posted in post #114 and answer in a way that shows you understood the points made.

Zathras

12-26-2008, 02:11 PM

Read the comment section of this YouTube video. There's a good discussion about the rocks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCN7qWrLHVw

I did read the comments....next time maybe you shouldn't recommend reading something that makes you look like an idiot.

Cosmored

12-26-2008, 02:39 PM

I did read the comments....next time maybe you shouldn't recommend reading something that makes you look like an idiot.
You seem to be trying to sway the people who don't have time to read the comment section of the video.

(Do a YouTube search on "WE LANDED ON THE MOON #1 Moonrocks" to see the comment section)

The guy who made the video bans people who corner him. I was banned and a guy whose user name is straydog got banned.

If you read the posts by the guy who made the moon rock video (spreadingthemuse) in the comment section of other videos, you'll see that he is all talk. He says he's a physics professor but he refuses to answer questions about physics.

Here are some threads started by straydog on another forum.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=48603&t=51606

You may sway a few people who don't have time to read the comment sections but people who read them will know you're full of it.

I see that you people use a lot of empty rhetoric and invective in your posts. Anyone who does some serious research knows the moon missions were faked. You're rhetoric and invective only sways people who haven't done the research.

You refute every argument with "might have or could have" and the all encompassing "you assume".

Riddle me this. How come only a hand full of (insert synonym of crazy here) folks know the truth while hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people associated with the program are still hoodwinked? Don't you worry that if you get to close people that smoke Marlboro's will be after you? Too bad that Mulder never looked into this, at least Scully might have slapped him in the head.

After all this time and people involved, I am SURE, 100% as a matter of fact that there would have been some death bed revelations with evidence (hidden 35mm shots of the astronauts relaxing in a trailer between moon walks in Nevada drinking a frosty miller or something). But no, not any, nada, zilch, zero. Where was the filming done? Who did it? How were a crew, sound stage, equipment, all sequestered for years? And of course, here is the best one. With out a moon landing and pictures of the earth you can still argue that the earth is flat.

Cosmored

12-27-2008, 12:19 PM

You refute every argument with "might have or could have" and the all encompassing "you assume".
The bottom line is that the video footage proves it was a hoax. There are plausible scenarios that would explain all of your questions. We just aren't sure which ones are the ones that are true.

Riddle me this. How come only a hand full of (insert synonym of crazy here) folks know the truth while hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people associated with the program are still hoodwinked?
After all this time and people involved, I am SURE, 100% as a matter of fact that there would have been some death bed revelations with evidence (hidden 35mm shots of the astronauts relaxing in a trailer between moon walks in Nevada drinking a frosty miller or something). But no, not any, nada, zilch, zero.

I already addressed this.

The press is owned so if anyone came forward, the press would ignore him. Here's some stuff about the press that I've already posted several times.

Here's some stuff about another guy that probably got offed.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/455971/1/

Where was the filming done? Who did it? How were a crew, sound stage, equipment, all sequestered for years?
You can't seriously think that there are no plausible explanations for any of this. In this video a theory is put forth about area 51.

I am always in awe of cosmetology er cosmology and physics classes especially the part of "man's magnificent efforts to explore the secret of cosmological cosmos."

Passing the classes is the basic requirement to be able to participate in a cosmonout training at Star City. :eek:

wiegenlied

12-28-2008, 01:08 AM

...and a research work with the Cosmotron in Brookhaven, which might be a good idea for cosmored to consider.

LunarBoater

12-29-2008, 05:22 AM

I don't feel like going back over this tread but feel compelled to drop this here:

clavius.org

Thousands upon thousand of brilliant scientists the world over have pored over data obtained during teh Apollo missions and none of them have any doubt that the missions happened. Anyone who says otherwise better have extraordinary credentials to back what they're touting. I have yet to see anybody with the education and experience to refute the missions ever do so.

A bit about me: I worked for NASA for several years, from 1999 to August of this year. Yes, we went to the moon :)

Sonnabend

12-29-2008, 05:29 AM

So when the hell do we go to Mars? :(

DAMMIT...time's a - wasting...let's GO...

LunarBoater

12-29-2008, 05:33 AM

Mars is tough. REALLY tough. A permanent habitation on the moon is the next step. That program is currently underway and the vehicle design is scalable to permit future Mars missions.

Doc Savage

12-29-2008, 09:04 AM

I don't feel like going back over this tread but feel compelled to drop this here:

clavius.org

Thousands upon thousand of brilliant scientists the world over have pored over data obtained during teh Apollo missions and none of them have any doubt that the missions happened. Anyone who says otherwise better have extraordinary credentials to back what they're touting. I have yet to see anybody with the education and experience to refute the missions ever do so.

A bit about me: I worked for NASA for several years, from 1999 to August of this year. Yes, we went to the moon :)

Dont you know that you were fooled. Thousands of employees in this country, other govenments, families, scientists today were all hoodwinked by a cabal of senior NASA administrators, the US GOVT, and Steven Spielberg. Happens every day. Very easy to cover up a conspiracy like this. With just a handfull of people involved. Even the cone heads laugh at Astronauts. Being aliens, they should know. [ /scarcasm]

Cosmored

12-29-2008, 12:03 PM

I don't feel like going back over this tread but feel compelled to drop this here:

clavius.org

Thousands upon thousand of brilliant scientists the world over have pored over data obtained during teh Apollo missions and none of them have any doubt that the missions happened. Anyone who says otherwise better have extraordinary credentials to back what they're touting. I have yet to see anybody with the education and experience to refute the missions ever do so.
Clavius and Bad Astonomy are government damage-control sites and all the pro-Apollo people who regularly post on their forums know the moon missions were faked.

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jay Windley and some of the other regular pro-Apollo people got caught in a big lie which is explained here.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094

Jay Windley was wrong but he wasn't mistaken--he was lying, as this thread from a geology forums shows.
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand

This is who Jay Windley is in case anyone doesn't know.
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

I asked Jay Windley a question about science and he refused to answer it because his job is to agree with the official version of everything and he couldn't disagree with what the scientist in the video said without looking silly.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1584
(Read reply #3)

Here's a thread I started at Bad Astonomy.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/49821-cia-cocaine-smuggling.html

The moderator wouldn't even allow the subject to be discussed as he knew his people couldn't discredit it. Just the fact that the subject was being discussed would have drawn attention to it and a lot of people would have gotten informed about it so it was their duty to stifle it.

I've got more about those two sites that I'll post later when I have some time.

Just the fact that those two sites exist is circumstantial evidence of a hoax because there's no need to be deceitful if you're defending the truth. Not that circumstantial evidence is necessary to prove the hoax though; the video evidence proves it.

asdf2231

12-29-2008, 12:49 PM

JHC this retard is worse than the Phillipino Judge with his magical dwarves. :rolleyes:

Sonnabend

12-29-2008, 01:13 PM

Somewhere, in some remote corner of the world, a village is wondering how its idiot got access to the internet:rolleyes:

Doc Savage

12-29-2008, 04:41 PM

I told someone at work that I was in a discussion on a board about how we faked the moonlanding. I had to change my shirt after she started laughing so hard she spewed the coffee in her mouth all over me.

.

Rebel Yell

12-29-2008, 05:02 PM

For further reading on Cosmored types.......
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatWhyFlat.htm

Why a Flat Earth?

1) Staying on top

Once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?

2) Falling off

As we begin to make this argument, we acknowledge beforehand that we are aware of the property of matter known as friction. Yes, we realize that whenever two surfaces are held together by any force there will be a static frictional force that will resist any motion by either surface in any direction other than parallel to the force. The example we are using is an extreme situation, and would involve the object in question to travel a considerable distance (tens of degrees of latitude) from the "top" of the planet.

Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong.

<Snip>

1) The fluid problem
Water. Regardless of which train of thought you follow, it covers over seventy-five percent of our planet's surface. And the atmosphere, also a fluid, covers the entire surface. The difference is why. While flat-Earthers know that the ocean is really just a large bowl, (with great sheets of ice around the edges to hold the ocean back), and the atmosphere is contained by a large dome, the backwards "round-Earth" way of thinking would have you believe that all those trillions of gallons of water and air just "stick" to the planet's surface.

Conventional thinking would suggest that the water would just run down the sides of the Earth (to use the analogy again, like droplets running down the sides of a beach ball) and fall into outer space, while the air would dissipate. Using the earlier mentioned idea of "gravitational charge" gives some credibility to the theory. If the fluids were static, then exposure to the gravitational field for a long enough period of time would allow their molecules to align themselves with and be pulled in by the field.

But fluids are not static, especially not in the atmosphere and oceans. Great ocean currents run both at the surface and deep below, carrying water across huge basins, keeping the solution far from stagnant. Jet streams of air travel at hundreds of miles per hour through the atmosphere. And windblown rainclouds carry vast quantities of evaporated seawater across miles of ground, releasing their load far from its starting point. Water or air that (according to "round-Earth" theory) starts on one side of the planet could end up completely on the other side in a matter of only a few days. With all this turbulence and motion, if the world were round, the oceans should all fall "down" into the sky, leaving the planet dry and barren, and the atmosphere would simply float away. Why, just look at the moon. It is round, like a ball, and yet it has no atmosphere at all.

Zathras

12-29-2008, 08:36 PM

Snipped to reduce boredom on CU

I looked at all those links (god, what a waste of time) you posted Cosmoron and you know what they showed me? Someone who doesn't have a life and employs sock puppets to help his pathetic cause. They also showed me that you're a Eurotwit, living in Spain. And that you've been banned on every website for what you've done here, posting a bunch of nutball theories created by idiots with no lives. I just hope that the mods here follow the examples set by those other board and kick your loony toon ass out the door.

jeskibuff

12-29-2008, 09:01 PM

you've been banned on every website for what you've done hereHey! Now that provides a little more incentive to visit his worthless links, just to see where he gets slapped around by other sites. Not quite ENOUGH incentive mind you, but perhaps if he tossed a little cash across the table I'd try one of the links. Perhaps $1000 would do it. Whaddya say, Cosmoron?

AmPat

12-30-2008, 12:39 AM

I am so disapointed that I wasted so much time at the Air and Space museum in DC and Dayton. Oh and several museums in AZ and one in AL. I also wasted time at the rest stop in Huntsville.

Who knew? I'm SOOOOOOOOOO gullible. I mean, I really didn't know that you could see the dark side of the moon from the southern hemisphere.:rolleyes:

asdf2231

12-30-2008, 02:28 AM

I am so disapointed that I wasted so much time at the Air and Space museum in DC and Dayton. Oh and several museums in AZ and one in AL. I also wasted time at the rest stop in Huntsville.

Who knew? I'm SOOOOOOOOOO gullible. I mean, I really didn't know that you could see the dark side of the moon from the southern hemisphere.:rolleyes:

Dude...

He posted YOUTUBE links!

And charts at one point.

It must be true! :D

Doc Savage

12-30-2008, 08:51 PM

Dude...

He posted YOUTUBE links!

And charts at one point.

It must be true! :D

Well, in Superman, I saw the General rough up a couple of astronauts on the moon. We must have been there.